Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

The sun is the white hole?

  1. May 16, 2003 #1
    i want reply to "Why Do Electrons Move?"
    (sorry, but the thread is closed..)

    i think the sun is the white hole.
    i think all electron comes from the sun.
    and electron goes into the sub-nucleus.
    i think sun is not burn out.
    it will be permanently.
    from this point of view, i want ask question, then,

    "Why Do Nucleus Move?"

    i don't think this is a truth.
    but i do believe also this is not a lie.
  2. jcsd
  3. May 16, 2003 #2
    I do believe you make 100% no sense. I suspect English isn't your first language...............
  4. May 19, 2003 #3
    simplifying my words.

    the electron's blackhole is the nucleus's white hole.
    the nucleus's white hole is the electron's black hole.

    i think
    nucleus side
    unknown nucleuse source > heaviest atom > .. > hydrogen > sun.

    electron side
    unknown electron source > sun > changing fHZ > .. > heaviest atom.

    if you don't like this, just ignore.
    i expect nothing.
  5. May 19, 2003 #4

    Tom Mattson

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    You are using the terms "white hole" and "black hole" in ways that have nothing to do with their scientific definitions. Neither an electron nor a nucleus could possibly qualify as either one.
  6. May 22, 2003 #5

    if electron goes into the *sub-nucleus*,
    how can you detect it? you just can't.

    all your detect-devices ALSO using the mechanisms of the (even if quantum- ) electromagnetics.

    we are in the phenomenon itself.
    we are not out of the phenomenons(nucleus<->electron).

    we see, feel, think.. the help of the electron and nucleus.
    we can't be objective.
  7. May 22, 2003 #6

    I think I speak for most of us when I say: What the heck are you talking about?

    I'm sorry, but I agree with Tom, the terms you are using do not apply. Please give your definition of a whiet hole and black hole.
  8. May 24, 2003 #7
    did you think about this?
    if you didn't, just ignore me. i wont hide my feeling.
    i don't want explain it. but i do believe this is not a lie.

    these *special* electron's death is not respond to all of human-made detect-devices.

    can you tell me why sun is not whitehole?
    and what is whitehole and blackhole in your definition?

    i knows NOBODY see blackhole and whitehole.
    Last edited by a moderator: May 24, 2003
  9. May 24, 2003 #8
    Well you are sorta right. Nobody can see a black hole. But the entire cosmos would be able to see a white hole, and indeed be blinded by it. A black hole occurs when a certain amount of mass is in a certain amount of volume. This creates a surface in which spacetime is essentially rotated 90 degrees out of phase with us, or translating, an event horizon from which nothing can escape, not even light. Everything that passes within the event horizon never comes back out of it, and potentially falls into a singularity, a point if you will.

    A white hole is just the opposite. It spews things out constantly, in flagrant violation of thermodynamics mind you.

    Electrons are neither of these, nor is the sun. The sun is a typical G2 (IIRC) main sequence star. It undergoes nuclear fusion in its core, and streams out photons. Since it is incredibly hot, it ionizes atoms, and with its intense magnetic field and out put, causes protons and electrons to stream off in what is called the solar wind. Every star has one pretty much.
  10. Jun 2, 2003 #9

    i think i kind-of follow you. but in a way you are just wrong. all the "detect-devices" can, in fact detect sub-atomic particles. we can also manipulate them like in partical accelerators. follow? and also, as stated before your definition of white-hole/black-hole is not accurate by our understanding. i'm sure this all makes perfect sence in your head but for us, it's a little confusig.
  11. Jun 13, 2003 #10

    My first thoughts:

    Our description of what ink blots appear to be black holes in the universe, are just that- ink blots. We can look at the ink blot through colors created by X-rays converted to icy blue, and we can look at stars with microwaves converted to flaming white... but realistically, the notion that anyone in this entire forum, has, by the mysterious magick of reading a Stephen Hawking lecture, or been bored to tears by one of his books,

    or, for that matter, been an Astronomer and looked through the giant telescopes... is forgetting something.

    Our detection technology is realistically very new, and the lifetime of a blackhole could be less than infinity. Infact, it could be less than a neutron star... Wanna spew garbage math to me about how its impossible ? I could care less.

    My theory is that black holes are not permament fixtures in the universe, an infact are just another stage of life for certain masses of stars, and will eventually turn into something else. I do not believe in the 90 degree space folding theory, that's Einstien- his theory in this area was a good illustration, but terribly wrong. Want me to prove it ? No need to. Use your imagination... Einstien said that was more important than knowledge.

    Once Knowledge told us the Sun revolved around the Earth and only 7 planets existed (Plato: Timaeus).

    So what is a white hole ? I think if a Blackhole is a collapsed star, than a Super Nova may be a temporary white hole, while a sun is much closer to a white hole than the thermodynamically impossible quasi pseudo matter-energy machine of wormhole fantasies you are claiming "is not this, but does not exist".

    Do stars burn out ? or perhaps some small rock aligns itself inbetwen our orbits and obscures those stars, making them disapear ? How much non computer generated video footage do we have of a complete life cycle of a star ? much less of a galactic blackhole vent ?

    This poor person we are speaking to is either using his own brain to translate his understanding to us, or he's using something like babyl fish, or some other trnaslation program. Mocking him only makes us look stupid.

    - Sihntashi
  12. Jun 13, 2003 #11
    Funny shintashi. Nothing you said is plausible except for one thing.

    The lifetime of blackholes is indeed less than infinity. The so called "garbage math" says so. Again, white holes violate the laws of thermodynamics. you are merely a crackpot if you refute the math behind the physics. For when Einstien said to use imagination, he wasn't saying "unicorns can exist" he was saying more along the lines that using mathematics and insight, you could discover very wonderful things (math is the paint of physics).
  13. Jun 18, 2003 #12
    I think your faith in the "mathematics" we sometimes use in astrophysics exceeds the boundaries of the sane mind and delves into the region of fanaticism.

    I have seen more than one perfect mathematical theory crumble to dust over the decades, as have the rest of the scientific community. We always leave something out.. sometimes we get our math backwards, or invent another imaginary number for our lack of wisdom concerning the subject.

    I have seen entire religions founded upon scientific principles which were using "math" as a shield, when their theories (math included) was a horribly failed experiment. (early catholicism... christian science... variations of gnosticism... hellenism... zoroasterism, etc.)

    Anyone flipping through Aasimov's book on the History of Physics, will realize that our greatest minds of the past made mistakes... And only fools will consider the current fad of "super science" to be flawless, especially when concerning celestial bodies which are billions of AUs away from our nearest Sattelite.

    Oddly, i had a long conversation with my uncle yesterday about imaginary numbers, such as zero, and the theory of x^n+y^n=z^n or some such, taking months and years to be proven to the math community not more than two decades ago, and yet now a huge amount of our "firm founded science" follows this principle.

    As for unicorns existing ? I aw a video game yesterday with a talking unicorn... and I thought to my self... " one day, some CRACKPOT is going to genetically engineer one of those things..."
  14. Jun 18, 2003 #13
    There is a big difference between relying on math to set up a basic theory and being fanatical about it. that is something a sane individual, such as myself, is able to tell. You, who feel no need to prove anything to us however, probably can't.
  15. Mar 27, 2004 #14
    what are you refering to when you say "*sub nucleus*"? If you are referring to subatomic particles, then as someone mentioned, it is perfectly possible.
    see this site:

    very interesting conjecture here. In essence, our brain does act like a computer composed of electrical circuits, which operate by the power generated by electrons and protons.

    We are rather a result of this phenomenon.

    I recommend you explain "it" (whatever "it" is in the context) if you would like, not neccesarily expect any good replies.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook